Peggy Noonan's latest column hits the nail on the head.

[imported_Shivetya]

Americans can't fire the president right now, so they're waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.

Its the other side of American politics. We can put these guys in office. Whether its Presidents or Congressmen, we put them there. Its far easier to fire our Representatives, they come up for "hiring" every two years. Presidents get four years to prove their worth before asking us to hire them once again. Senators get 6 years, which is probably too many as they can do quite a bit of damage in 4 years and then lie low for a few till they are "re-hired"

I guess the best thing about being insulated from bad Presidents is that they only last so long. Bush will be gone in a few years. The choice we have to make is, who do we trust to hire for the next 4 years and will we have the will power or choice to fire them if necessary?

 

[Harvey]

That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

 

[alchemize]

Reality check - you aren't going to get it. No wonder your icon is a parrot...

Polly didn't get his cracker, you're not getting your impeachment.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

If the evidence is so overwhelming, why haven't there been impeachment proceedings yet...we know nothing new about Bush now that we didn't know in '04, yet he still managed to defeat Kerry...and upon siezing Congress, the Democrats didn't exactly make accountability their first priority.

None of the high crime allegations against the Bush Administration have managed to stick...that, and the Democrats neither have the votes nor the will to pursue impeachment proceedings, because it could potentially blow up in their face just as the nation moves into the '08 campaign season.

Bush is arrogant, incompetent and power hungry...all dangerous characteristics for a leader, but they do not necessitate criminality...the WoT enabled Bush to expand the role of the Executive branch, and Congress failed to keep the President in check during his power grab.

 

[kylebisme]

I don't see how misrepresenting evidence in order to mislead our nation into a war can be considered anything less than treason.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I don't see how misrepresenting evidence in order to mislead our nation into a war can be considered anything less than treason.

The problem is that the sources being discredited are those that fed his office. In other words, many of these sources wanted to either give him what he wanted or they wanted a conflict. So who do you go after?

Considering the large number of investigations going on and have been going on someone would have had something concrete by now if there were something.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I don't see how misrepresenting evidence in order to mislead our nation into a war can be considered anything less than treason.

• As of 07/17/07 11:39 am EDT, the official count is 3618 (and rising) dead American troops.
  
  
  
  
  
• Tens of thousands more (and rising) are wounded, scarred for life and disabled.
  
• Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, wounded and displaced.
  
• So far, the war in Iraq has cost around a half trillion dollars. By the time we're done paying for it, including the post-war costs, including caring for our wounded troops, that will probably climb to several trillions of dollars of debt our great great grandchildren will still be paying long after we've left this planet.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie... you fscking traitor! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Reality check - you aren't going to get it. No wonder your icon is a parrot...

Polly didn't get his cracker, you're not getting your impeachment.

Unless there's an inside joke, isn't this an obvious flame?

 

[Deudalus]

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, wounded and displaced.

I see this figure thrown around alot, but I have yet to see a credible source back it up.

That is unless you consider Cindy Sheehan and the dailykos reputable sources.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
If the evidence is so overwhelming, why haven't there been impeachment proceedings yet...

Dick Cheney. No sane individual, opposing President Bush's crimes, would deign to remove him from office if it places the Spawn of Satan in the Oval Office. Cheney is W's Agnew, his insurance against accountability.

we know nothing new about Bush now that we didn't know in '04, yet he still managed to defeat Kerry...and upon seizing Congress, the Democrats didn't exactly make accountability their first priority.

Kerry was the Democrats' gift to W, a truly terrible choice for the presidential nomination.

None of the high crime allegations against the Bush Administration have managed to stick...that, and the Democrats neither have the votes nor the will to pursue impeachment proceedings, because it could potentially blow up in their face just as the nation moves into the '08 campaign season.

Once again, Dick Cheney. If the House were to convene an impeachment committee, they could issue an indictment on day one. Unlawful suspension of Habeas Corpus (a right reserved to the Congress) and violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would suffice.

Bush is arrogant, incompetent and power hungry...all dangerous characteristics for a leader, but they do not necessitate criminality...the WoT enabled Bush to expand the role of the Executive branch, and Congress failed to keep the President in check during his power grab.

I agree on W's faults as a leader, but the WoT does not excuse his executive excesses.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, wounded and displaced.

I see this figure thrown around alot, but I have yet to see a credible source back it up.

That is unless you consider Cindy Sheehan and the dailykos reputable sources.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q...=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Its on CNN so it must be true!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Reality check - you aren't going to get it. No wonder your icon is a parrot...

Your reality check just bounced. I'd rather continue to stand up against the Bush criminals and champion impeaching the lot of them than give up on it.

Polly didn't get his cracker, you're not getting your impeachment.

If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

 

[Lemon law]

Once the repubs desert GWB in the Senate---and the opposition can muster 60+ votes---then the end will be very near for GWB&co.

Until then the Bush administrations are dangerous snakes who will force a congressional v. executive showdown.

Eventually GWB will push his luck too far---and then it will be all over as a very pissed off congress starts bringing GWB to heel and over rides his veto's.

And once we all really learn what GWB&co. has been up to----my guess is that GWB will find himself heading for jail.---and with a good part of his administration
facing criminal charges along with him.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums. I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums. I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

The only bias here is those that love the Country Vs those that hate the country and hell bent on destroying it further.

 

[Balt]

Impeachment of Bush is pointless and perhaps even harmful unless you can get Cheney out of office first. While I believe Bush has been little more than a shill for Cheney and his friends, I believe that GWB has at least a little bit of a conscience.

 

[ayabe]

Well they both need to be removed, Cheney first. Bush would not be in many of the bad positions he's in if not for Cheney. There's 2% of my heart that feels bad for W, he trusted the wrong people, just like LBJ.

I don't really know what possessed people to vote for him in '04, the writing was on the wall. The only difference between then and now is that what we thought we knew about him back then is now irrefutably being documented almost daily in our news media.

This is what bothers me about many of the Republican candidates they are parrotting many of his negative character traits, faux bluster mixed with quasi religious warmongering.

This country cannot afford 4 more years of this status quo, internationally reviled, wholly corrupt and incompetent leadership.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums. I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

Don't bother complaining, you only get to visit banville when you do.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums. I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

Don't bother complaining, you only get to visit banville when you do.

alchemize opened that door with insults, so why are some of you getting so teary-eyed over Harvey firing back at him

tit for tat, as they say.......

 

[OrByte]

Dems will get into office this next go around.

And then all the power grabbing that the NEOCONs did during GWBs presidency will come back to bite them in the @ss.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the reason for impeachment. The evidence is overwheming that Bushies have committed so many "high crimes" (felonies) that we can skip the misdemeanors.

It's in the Constitution. The time to use it is NOW.

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you still support the Criminal In Chief and his cabal of murders and traitors in the face of all the evidence against them, you're either incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or one of the criminals. Which is it? :shocked:

If you think your little wise ass quip is funny, please enjoy an exta helping of FOAD!

I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums. I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

Harvey has the right to say whatever he wants.
As long as he stays away from the personal attacks I have no problem with him stating his positions.

Although I do beleive that Harvey should have NOTHING at all to do with moderating P&N since his positions and beliefs would make it hard for any one to trust his judgement as being non-biased.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
If the evidence is so overwhelming, why haven't there been impeachment proceedings yet...

Dick Cheney. No sane individual, opposing President Bush's crimes, would deign to remove him from office if it places the Spawn of Satan in the Oval Office. Cheney is W's Agnew, his insurance against accountability.

we know nothing new about Bush now that we didn't know in '04, yet he still managed to defeat Kerry...and upon seizing Congress, the Democrats didn't exactly make accountability their first priority.

Kerry was the Democrats' gift to W, a truly terrible choice for the presidential nomination.

None of the high crime allegations against the Bush Administration have managed to stick...that, and the Democrats neither have the votes nor the will to pursue impeachment proceedings, because it could potentially blow up in their face just as the nation moves into the '08 campaign season.

Once again, Dick Cheney. If the House were to convene an impeachment committee, they could issue an indictment on day one. Unlawful suspension of Habeas Corpus (a right reserved to the Congress) and violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would suffice.

Bush is arrogant, incompetent and power hungry...all dangerous characteristics for a leader, but they do not necessitate criminality...the WoT enabled Bush to expand the role of the Executive branch, and Congress failed to keep the President in check during his power grab.

I agree on W's faults as a leader, but the WoT does not excuse his executive excesses.

There is already a bill for the impeachment of Cheney. The simple answer is to impeach them both. They are both criminals.

 

[senseamp]

Democrats should not initiate impeachment. Let Bush destroy the GOP. If Republicans want to do it, then Democrats should only go along if they get Cheney out too. So far, the Republicans seem content at letting Bush destroy their party, so no big hurry.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Congress will not impeach both at the same time.

If Bush is attacked and removed, do the DCems really want Cheney to be running things.

If Cheney goes first; Bush will select a VP replacement and you might end up with a Nixon.AgneswFord situation.

You get a unknown Republican to start clean without Bush baggage and force the Democrats to have to stand on their unenviable record rather than running against a non-Bush person.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett
I'm stilll amazed a person as biased as this is allowed to moderate the P&N forums.

Exactly what makes you think I'm not entitled to voice my own beliefs under my own name, regardless of whether I'm a mod?

I thought moderators were supposed to be the level-headed ones of the group.

As a mod, yes. I've never banned anyone or given any time out for personal attacks on me. For the record, if I see something that bothers me enough on that level, I ask other mods to look at it and make their own call.

You may have noticed that I don't hesitate speak my mind pretty openly under my own name. I'd hope that would be enough reason for you to understand that I have no need to bully anyone as a mod.

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Don't bother complaining, you only get to visit banville when you do.

Did I ever ban you, or Corbett, or ProfJohn? I know there are some who have accused me of banning members for personal reasons. I've been a mod, here, for over ten years, going back to the UBB board, and it isn't so. I can't force you to believe me, and I can't be bothered by it if you don't.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Although I do beleive that Harvey should have NOTHING at all to do with moderating P&N since his positions and beliefs would make it hard for any one to trust his judgement as being non-biased.

And I don't in any situations related to my views vs. anyone else's. On this forum, my modding is mainly locking or combining duplicate threads and dealing with offenses not related to my personal interactions. I've got more than enough to do on these forums without that. You can be sure I'll act when I see blatant racism and other bigotry, and you probably wouldn't believe how many times I've defended the rights of a lot of you with whom I personally disagree.

If you want to see more of my more visible mod work, go read the Traders To Avoid thread and the majority of the Troll Alerts in FS/T or many of the regular sticky threads in Hot Deals and other forums. I'm proud of having saved a lot of members' money and goods and sending at least a few of the bad guys to the grey bar hotel, and I've had some good laughs over some of those who threatened me for doing it. And I'm the one who wrote the poem in the last few Holiday threads.

There's more. There's a lot more, but none of it relates to any retaliation against a member who disagrees with my views on this forum.

Now, if you're through hijacking threads to talk about me, can we get back to the topic at hand?